Do we really know right from wrong?

I assume that if I asked nearly anyone if they have a sense of right and wrong the answer would be affirmative. It is normal to think that we have a handle on what’s really going on, and that our biases correctly reflect reality and those who disagree in any particular are somehow out of touch with what is ‘plain as the nose on yer face’. Evidence, however, militates against this comforting delusion.
Let’s look at the vast number of self-destructive behaviors nearly everyone engages in. If we’re so smart what’s up with all the destructive addictions and other forms of self-defeating behavior? A person engages in behavior that provides temporary amelioration for an undesirable sensation but ignores other negative effects produced by the behavior. Self-destructive behavior can be simply a lack of education. In this case, what we don’t know can hurt. Corrective knowledge can lead to improved outcomes. There are many other issues surrounding addiction but this is an example of not knowing right from wrong.
Is it then a simple matter of education? How can we account for the poor choices of the highly educated? What other factors exist? A Christian might posit that willingness to pursue destructive ends via destructive means is hardwired into the species. In other words we’re simply bent and while knowing better choose to do wrong. The flip side of that idea is the concept that individuals seek their own best good and while that may include immoral or unlawful acts they are not committing the acts for the sake of wrongness but because of a belief in personal good above public good. Usually these beliefs result in short term gain with long term regret, as in a criminal who is eventually found and imprisoned. Conversely, even altruistic motives such as the public good can result in obviously wrong behavior.
As a group, laws, policies, mores, etc. inform our view of right from wrong for most use cases. But like the shifting of tectonic plates that is continuous and usually unnoticed, social norms slide and sometimes rift and leave gaps. In the gaps, well-meaning people can disagree on right and wrong. Reasonable persons can equally fall on either side with no indication of objective standards. Usually whoever has the monopoly on violence picks a side and calls that right. Others, seeing this, would call that wrong. An example is drug laws. Persons with various interests decided certain substances were morally and legally wrong. That decision led to the kidnapping and imprisonment of many other people who disagreed. Now, in most cases kidnapping and imprisoning is wrong unless the kidnapper has a badge and the goaler has a writ from a judge that empowers the exception, then it’s all right. Other reasonable people might argue that it’s wrong on its face to think that right and wrong can issue out of willingness to commit violence against others.
Where are we then? Anarchy? Well, from a certain point of view we always were and always are in a state of anarchy because either free will or determinism reigns and either way the pretense of ‘ruling over’ is merely pretext for violence.
All this to show, we don’t really understand right from wrong. That they exist as concepts is remarkable. Platonic delineation seems permanently beyond humanity.